but still don't agree completely with him :) though i cant be arsed to go into it, as it is largely pointless to discuss this :)

as a very intelligent and very cynical individual. Your argument has some merit, but:

- Call me childish if you will, but I truly believe that war should only be used when all other options have been exhausted. I think this should be a guiding principle of any nation that feels it has the right to meddle in international affairs. You're quite right, I cannot countenance war. You seem to think this makes me an idealistic coward. It takes a real coward to declare war willy nilly, send his men out to die in the desert and to kill countless faceless civilians, knowing at the back of his mind that was something else could have been done, some other, tougher, more long term solution was waiting.

- You're quite right, the US never will clamp down on Israel, nor will most of the other ME states ever be reasonable about the situation. I was merely stating what would have to occur in an ideal scenario for some sort of peace settlement to be reached.

- I'm assuming your "reasonable solution" is some variety of sarcasm, I'm not going to bother responding to it.

- Your discussion about Syria, Iran et al strikes me as rather nasty. You even use the term "only language they understand" unironically, which I always find funny in a sad way. So, because America and Britain's foreign policy is one of ignorance and violence, does that mean America's government only understands violence in return? How about the American people? As long as you treat your opposites as terrorist scum, you'll get the same back. Certainly, the Iranian and Syrian governments are nasty pieces of work, which in an ideal world wouldn't be there. This doesn't mean, however, that they aren't intelligent human beings who a) look for advantage, be it economic or political, and b) can be reasoned with at least on some level. Which brings me back to prosperity. But of course, we shouldn't be doing that, should we? We should be forcefully invading them and setting up puppet governments. Because that's worked so well elsewhere.

- For someone who gets uppity when someone turns the straw man on him, you certainly have a fair amount of it in yourself. I apologise for calling you short sighted, but do not say I don't understand the "cultural and historical" aspects of the conflict, because from what I can gather, I know about as much as you do, but have a different take on it. There's simply no need for that level of pettiness, which always seems to invade these discussions.

However, you're right- I haven't said what I think would be the best course of action from our perspective, given political realities. Firstly, Blair has got to stop thinking that by supporting Bush on some of his more stupid crusades, he somehow acquires credit with America, which he can cash in in moments like these. If, as ho_fo says, America truly stands alone on these issues, the UN will become more effectual. I think the UN itself should impose as firm a line as it possibly can on Israel, in particular forcing it to allow Palestine to trade freely with the rest of the world. Finally, yes, hahaha they don't speaky the language, some sort of dialogue has got to be opened with Iran and Syria. Without their help, which can probably be garnered through trade agreements which in turn can be withdrawn once they start playing silly buggers, there will be no end to extremist terrorism, particularly in Iraq.